' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision petitioners have challenged the judgment & decree dated 12.2.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 18.3.2011 whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/predecessor of petitioners that he is owner in possession of 7/16 share in the suit property and challenged the registered gift deed and mutation on the basis of that gift deed, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that judgments & decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable under the law and the suit was liable to be decreed on the basis of evidence produced by the plaintiffs-petitioners.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.
4. Case of the original plaintiff Sultan the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners that he is the real brother of Fateh Khan alias Fatta and Fatta was having no male issue, he was having six daughters and one wife and alleged gift of the suit property to, his one daughter Mst. Fatima defendant No, 1 through gift deed dated 14.4.1996 registered by the Sub-Registrar on 15.4.1996 and on the basis of said gift deed mutation of gift bearing No, 906 are fraudulent documents. Learned counsel stated that original plaintiff was the real brother of the donor and in order to disinherit him all these documents have been managed.
5. Suit was contested. Issues were framed. Both the parties produced their respective evidence.
Learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.3.2011 dismissed the suit. Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed.
6. In this case registered gift deed in favour of Mst. Fatima Bibi defendant No, 1 has been challenged, which has been registered as document No, 99-1 on 15.4.1996 and on the basis of this document Mutation No, 906 was attested on 28.11.1998. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below with regard to the valid registration of the gift deed and attestation of mutation on the basis of gift deed, therefore, when there are concurrent findings of fact recorded against the petitioners on the basis of minutely scrutinizing the evidence produced by the parties, then for invoking jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC the petitioners were required to show that the findings recorded by the two Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or some procedural defect fatal to the case but not such misreading, non-reading or procedural defect has been highlighted nor I find the same in the findings recorded by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, no case for interference has been made out, therefore, this revision petition having no merits is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision in limine.